Add Comment

The objective basis for rights and its dependence on an objective ethics were established by Ayn Rand long ago. Her philosophy of rights should not be ignored, especially on an Ayn Rand forum, as if this were an open question and nothing had been written about it -- let alone selling a pdf file with no clue what is in it, and stabbing in the dark with nonsense and contradictions like "cosmic 'Right' of the human species or any other sentient conscious being".

See especially "The Objectivist Ethics", "Man's Rights", "Collectivize 'Rights', and "The Nature of Government" in her anthology The Virtue of Selfishness.

The founders knew more about rights than we do today. But they did not codify it as such. Ayn Rand codified it but who outside our circles has read it. I offer a different viewpoint that better fits today.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is claimed to "not fit today"? What are you talking about? The founders of the country based their theories on Enlightenment thinking with an implicit egoism but didn't have an ethics contrary to human sacrifice at all. Ayn Rand answered that. Such basic principles do not depend on "today". What "different viewpoint" are you peddling on an Ayn Rand forum without admitting that at the outset and not described at all in the advertising to pay $19 for a pdf file?

Ayn Rand's books sell in the millions. They are talked about right here, among other places. So why aren't you talking about it yourslef instead of peddling something else as if the subject had never been written about, then later admitting when called on it that she had already "nailed it long ago"? She already explained why a proper government depends on principles of ethics, including rights. She already showed why rights are not "granted" by government. What do you think you are doing differently to "disprove that" and what is "common knownsense" supposed to mean? What are you selling that has not been revealed in your advertising?

Oh Joy! I've attracted the attention of "the Forum Bully". I don't know you. You don't know me. Yet you feel it appropriate to impugn my intentions here. Funny how many negative opinions I've received on my work from people who never read it. Saint Ayn Rand is timeless indeed. So is Aristotle. Yet some people actually know that they did not provide "the whole truth", that there are other pieces of knowledge to be had. Her relating of rights to morals leaves open the justification of the living Hell we call the Middle East. It is certainly not objective core. It does not even justify the 1st Amendment, which transcends mere morality. Is there an objective basis that might serve better? I thought it a worthy question and so I explored that in an ebook (the pdf file). I realized some interesting epiphanies, rediscovered old knowledge, and introduce some new concepts. What are they? Spend the damn $19.

For general information I don't know how the ignore button keeps getting breached but if i consistently over a years period of time do not answer or engage it's because you have nothing to offer and aren't worth the effort. Anything I post please use your ignore button to make sure . This of course does not apply to the vast majority.

Yes you can it's embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. You know those too historical documents of not significant purpose anymore. Not when over half the country has turned their back on it. Be glad it worked 240 years. that's over average for any nation.

The Declaration and Constitution do not provide any philosophical basis of rights. The Declaration takes them as a starting point, presumed already understood from the Enlightenment to be in accordance with man's nature. The Constitution describes the structure and functions of the Federal government of limited powers necessary to protect presumed rights.

Neither are a substitute for philosophy, and the weakness of Enlightenment philosophy in ethics undermined the subsequent evolution of the country. The presumed right to life, property, liberty and the pursuit of one's own happiness represents an implicit philosophy of egoism, but it was not expressed fully enough to counter the historical dominance of sacrifice to others as the assumed basis of ethics.

It was based on the idea that free and independent citizens coudl govern themselves and that was wholly derived and based on philosophy.

In those days with a lot on their plate they did not feel the need to mention every possibility for two hundred years down the line. After all they were all literate and educated. The didn't think about the future where some thouoght they could redefine everything but left the protection up to checks and balances, the courts, and the idea that citizens would choose people of honor and principles. Expressing it fully enouogh has taken a five thousand word set of documents roughly and turned it into 12000 unenforced gun laws in that one area alone.

Ergo Sum? Citizens today are not responsible enough to governn themselves they need a ruling class.

Easy to say when the education system and the media is as rigged as the electon system and the government.

You wrote that the Declaration and the Constitution provided an objective basis for rights. That isn't true.

The Enlightenment and the founders of this country in particular did not have an objective basis for rights and did not have an ethics of egoism to support it. This has nothing to do with "full plates" and rambling about gun laws and "rigged elections". Have you read Ayn Rand on rights and ethics?

The most basic cosmic "Right" of the human species or any other sentient conscious being is the right to live a Free peaceful, responsible, prosperous, happy existence and recognizing that everyone else has that right so long as no one threatens one's life, liberty, property or contracts.